The court looked at the data and saw that, by the numbers, it wasn't an issue in the 5 states that were under heavy scrutiny.
This is a good thing. It means that the problem that caused the provision to the act has been addressed and that the part of the law dealing with it is no longer necessary.
Think how many old laws that don't make any sense now are still on the books?
The court looked at the data and saw that, by the numbers, it wasn't an issue in the 5 states that were under heavy scrutiny.
This is a good thing. It means that the problem that caused the provision to the act has been addressed and that the part of the law dealing with it is no longer necessary.
Think how many old laws that don't make any sense now are still on the books?
What numbers? Using examples of African American mayors in areas which back in 1965 were identified as needing this law? Congress voted in 2006 to keep this law, recognizing it's benefit -- it does nothing but ensure what happened before won't happen again. There was no reason for the Supreme Court to overturn Congress' decision and it was a decision heavily in favour of keeping the provision in place. A congress where the Republicans had a heavy majority.
It's telling that Texas was quick to take advantage of this decision --
Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly will result from this? Officials can gerrymander without restraint now?
Yes, these states (and certain areas of other states) can gerrymander without restraint -- the federal government no longer has any say in how voting districts can be altered.
Log in to comment